ArticlePloS one2024
Machine learning algorithm for ventilator mode selection, pressure and volume control.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning in ARDS: an intensivist's guide to artificial intelligence applications.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical ventilation techniques are vital for preserving individuals with a serious condition lives in the prolonged hospitalization unit. Nevertheless, an imbalance amid the hospitalized people demands and the respiratory structure could cause to inconsistencies in the patient's inhalation. To tackle this problem, this study presents an Iterative Learning PID Controller (ILC-PID), a unique current cycle feedback type controller that helps in gaining the correct pressure and volume. The paper also offers a clear and complete examination of the primarily efficient neural approach for generating optimal inhalation strategies. Moreover, machine learning-based classifiers are used to evaluate the precision and performance of the ILC-PID controller. These classifiers able to forecast and choose the perfect type for various inhalation modes, eliminating the likelihood that patients will require mechanical ventilation. In pressure control, the suggested accurate neural categorization exhibited an average accuracy rate of 88.2% in continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mode and 91.7% in proportional assist ventilation (PAV) mode while comparing with the other classifiers like ensemble classifier has reduced accuracy rate of 69.5% in CPAP mode and also 71.7% in PAV mode. An average accuracy of 78.9% rate in other classifiers compared to neutral network in CPAP. The neural model had an typical range of 81.6% in CPAP mode and 84.59% in PAV mode for 20 cm H2O of volume created by the neural network classifier in the volume investigation. Compared to the other classifiers, an average of 72.17% was in CPAP mode, and 77.83% was in PAV mode in volume control. Different approaches, such as decision trees, optimizable Bayes trees, naive Bayes trees, nearest neighbour trees, and an ensemble of trees, were also evaluated regarding the accuracy by confusion matrix concept, training duration, specificity, sensitivity, and F1 score.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.